The WoodenBoat Forum is sponsored by WoodenBoat Publications, publisher of WoodenBoat magazine. The Forum is a free service, and much like the "free" content on Public Radio, we hope you will support WoodenBoat by subscribing to this fabulous magazine. To get WoodenBoat delivered to your door or computer, mobile device of choice, etc, click WB Subscriptions.

If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ. You'll find answers to the frequently asked questions as well as basic rules. No need to register unless you would like to participate, although some images will only show if you are registered/logged-in.

You will need to register
before you can post: click the red register link or the register tab, above, right.

Selling/self promotion postings are verboten on the Forum. To advertise, take a look at WoodenBoat Advertising, or use your Google Adwords account if you want to advertise on the Forum.

Re: Ronald Reagan

I worry about the people whose lives have been reduced to spewing the same boring, hateful political bile into internet forums, day after day, for years really, without any subject matter variation at all.

Think of the hours of one's life that is spent on it, in lieu of something productive or beneficial. Thousands of hours.

Re: Ronald Reagan

Originally Posted by Sky Blue

I worry about the people whose lives have been reduced to spewing the same boring, hateful political bile into internet forums, day after day, for years really, without any subject matter variation at all.

Think of the hours of one's life that is spent on it, in lieu of something productive or beneficial. Thousands of hours.

Re: Ronald Reagan

Virtue signalling?

I am enraged about the people whose lives seem to have been reduced to sucking down the lies Reagan invented, all the while destroying their Constitution in the name of making some other motherlover rich.

If such a moron wishes to waste his life smearing feces over the Constitution, then I suppose he has a right to do so, but it may be a better choice to do so in Somalia, where such signals are considered virtuous.

Re: Ronald Reagan

Unfortunately he was a very influential president. The greatest damage he did was by publicizing the credo that government per se was bad.

He should have been impeached for Iran-Contra too, but no one had the stomach for it so soon after the Nixon drama. Speaking of which, it is instructive that the most runious and scandal-ridden presidents in recent history were all Republican: Nixon, Reagan, Dubya, and our current president.

The enablers propping up the rolling disaster of the current presidency must be turned out, and the cycle shattered. Next e!ection, vote against EVERY Republican, for EVERY office, at EVERY level. Only by doing so can we really make America great again.

Re: Ronald Reagan

Originally Posted by Gerarddm

Unfortunately he was a very influential president. The greatest damage he did was by publicizing the credo that government per se was bad.

He should have been impeached for Iran-Contra too, but no one had the stomach for it so soon after the Nixon drama. Speaking of which, it is instructive that the most runious and scandal-ridden presidents in recent history were all Republican: Nixon, Reagan, Dubya, and our current president.

The enablers propping up the rolling disaster of the current presidency must be turned out, and the cycle shattered. Next e!ection, vote against EVERY Republican, for EVERY office, at EVERY level. Only by doing so can we really make America great again.

I think it important to remember Nixon would have survived, sans the tapes. Scandals only seem to matter when it's a Democrat.

Re: Ronald Reagan

Originally Posted by Gerarddm

Unfortunately he was a very influential president. The greatest damage he did was by publicizing the credo that government per se was bad.

He should have been impeached for Iran-Contra too, but no one had the stomach for it so soon after the Nixon drama. Speaking of which, it is instructive that the most runious and scandal-ridden presidents in recent history were all Republican: Nixon, Reagan, Dubya, and our current president.

The enablers propping up the rolling disaster of the current presidency must be turned out, and the cycle shattered. Next e!ection, vote against EVERY Republican, for EVERY office, at EVERY level. Only by doing so can we really make America great again.

Yup, once Nixon got himself elected by diddling with the Paris Peace Talks, Republican Presidential candidates have felt free to exercise their treasonous proclivities without compunction.

Loathsome, disgusting, oozing pustules that they are.

Reds love it.

The so-called 'conservatives' in this country do not give a flying flip about America.

The scary thing is that they have been convinced that destroying the Constitution is exactly the same as upholding the Constitution, and there is no room in their little pea brains for doubt.

Re: Ronald Reagan

There's a woman from my wife's church, lovely and in her mid-60's, great person, still a professional and deeply engaged in the community, etc. She's completely lost her mind on Facebook over Trump in the last several months, even going so far as to admit that Kamala Harris' office has blocked her e-mails and calls. I never would have dreamed that she would be a person that would slide into abject hysteria (especially publicly) like this. It has consumed her, to her detriment.

Re: Ronald Reagan

Reagan's Latin America policy was a heartless, cruel tragedy. I will remember him for that.

There is no rational, logical, or physical description of how free will could exist. It therefore makes no sense to praise or condemn anyone on the grounds they are a free willed self that made one choice but could have chosen something else. There is no evidence that such a situation is possible in our Universe. Demonstrate otherwise and I will be thrilled.

Re: Ronald Reagan

This is from ProPublica "[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]As part of these reforms, Reagan passed the 1986 Tax Reform Act. This law “[/COLOR]raised corporate taxes by $120 billion[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)] over five years and closed corporate tax loopholes worth about $300 billion over that same period.”

[/COLOR]Reagan also passed Immigration reform and social security reform both of which benefited tens of millions of people.

Calling for the Berlin Wall to come down eventually benefited hundreds of millions more.

Reagan’s tax policy was much more flexible than current Republican policy, and the change is really because of Grover Norquist, not Ronald Reagan. A lot of the problems of income concentration we have now started under Reagan, but continued under Clinton, and under Obama. Though Obama did try to address this late in his presidency.

I’m aware that some people found Reagan’s policy in Central America terrible. I found Obama’s drone strikes on innocent Americans and his lack of oversight of the NSA to be a disaster. I try not to blame either of them for things they did not do, or would not support.

A lot of the pro and anti Reagan material out there is not actually about Reagan, or hugely misunderstands him. The post on this thread saying “he never met a corporation he did not like” is an example. It’s possible that is true, but he liked them and he increased their tax burden. I doubt that is what the original post meant by liked, but I could be wrong.

Yachting, the only sport where you get to be a mechanic, electrician, plumber and carpenter

Re: Ronald Reagan

Reagans iran contra made watergate and whitewater seem like spitting in the street. Congress voted to cut off funding to the contras, Reagan said screw congress....the people. He copped the old reep plea where he leaves you two choices. He was too lazy or too dumb to run the Whitehouse. Got away with it to. Ever hear LBJ say, "Vietnam? Dunno....ask Bob McNamara"? Dems are held to a higher standard. Rons greatest legacy though is that he made us a country of welfare queens. We want everything for free. You'll buy it again with trumps infrastructure plan. You can have roads and bridges....FOR FREE. How cleaver. The Berlin Wall came down because we spent the Russians into oblivion. Giving Reagan credit Is like the flea on the barge thinking they're opening the bridge for him. Ron just happened to be there. Reagan was a bum.

Re: Ronald Reagan

Originally Posted by Tom Hunter

This is from ProPublica "[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]As part of these reforms, Reagan passed the 1986 Tax Reform Act. This law “[/COLOR]raised corporate taxes by $120 billion[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)] over five years and closed corporate tax loopholes worth about $300 billion over that same period.”

[/COLOR]Reagan also passed Immigration reform and social security reform both of which benefited tens of millions of people.

Calling for the Berlin Wall to come down eventually benefited hundreds of millions more.

Reagan’s tax policy was much more flexible than current Republican policy, and the change is really because of Grover Norquist, not Ronald Reagan. A lot of the problems of income concentration we have now started under Reagan, but continued under Clinton, and under Obama. Though Obama did try to address this late in his presidency.

I’m aware that some people found Reagan’s policy in Central America terrible. I found Obama’s drone strikes on innocent Americans and his lack of oversight of the NSA to be a disaster. I try not to blame either of them for things they did not do, or would not support.

A lot of the pro and anti Reagan material out there is not actually about Reagan, or hugely misunderstands him. The post on this thread saying “he never met a corporation he did not like” is an example. It’s possible that is true, but he liked them and he increased their tax burden. I doubt that is what the original post meant by liked, but I could be wrong.

So, 'Damned by faint praise' is the best you can do?

A little, 'Gee, the other guys do it', just for distraction?

It is now an accepted, historical fact that RMF Nixon committed Treason by diddling with the Paris peace talks before he was even elected.

We could hardly expect his moral character to improve while holding Presidential Power, now could we?

I fully expect that Ronald F Reagan will be recognized for the treasonous, anti-American scuzbag that he was, too. From the October Surprise through Iran Contra, and on to the continuing legacy that is cocaine/crack, he was the toady servant to the MIC.

Re: Ronald Reagan

Originally Posted by JimD

Reagan's Latin America policy was a heartless, cruel tragedy. I will remember him for that.

Reagan understood that the single, most devastating thing that could happen to any country, but especially to any third world country, as a successful communist revolution. He worked to prevent that, he should be honored for that. Way too many in the west opposed him for it, they should be ashamed.

Re: Ronald Reagan

In the late 70s, the western world's political leaders had come to accept the fact that Moscow-controlled international communism was not only here to stay, but that containment was not even feasible. Two world leaders said no, just two. Reagan and Pope John Paul II. Visionaries who the world is deeply indebted to.

Re: Ronald Reagan

Originally Posted by peb

In the late 70s, the western world's political leaders had come to accept the fact that Moscow-controlled international communism was not only here to stay, but that containment was not even feasible. Two world leaders said no, just two. Reagan and Pope John Paul II. Visionaries who the world is deeply indebted to.

What of Reagan's contemporaries, in the NATO alliance or elsewhere? What of those who, even in America, jockeyed for power with Reagan? The consistent policy America took against the Soviet Union since 1945 hadn't really adapted much - Deterrence Theory and Mutual Assured Destruction were the stalwarts of every single American administration - and of every single Presidential Candidate from the 2 big parties who lost an American election in that period too.

What of Reagan's muse, the mighty Iron Lady? Hell, what of Gorbachev, who actually wanted to reduce nuclear arsenals far below Reagan's willingness, and whose authority was actually expressed when the Berlin Wall came down? He wanted to remain Communist, sure, but wanted even more to try and reduce the likelihood that the world would end up a cinder. I disagree with him profoundly, but recognize that I also owe him a debt.

If I use the word "God," I sure don't mean an old man in the sky who just loves the occasional goat sacrifice. - Anne Lamott

Re: Ronald Reagan

Originally Posted by peb

Reagan understood that the single, most devastating thing that could happen to any country, but especially to any third world country, as a successful communist revolution. He worked to prevent that, he should be honored for that. Way too many in the west opposed him for it, they should be ashamed.

Anybody who has any respect for that spineless POS is not well.

Iran-Contra was TREASON.

There is no 'justification' possible. One should never feel ashamed for finding treason deplorable and insupportable.

Iran-Contra also was the purpose of the War On Drugs.

US interdiction targeted those smugglers NOT working for the CIA, and ramped up the prices, so that the CIA got more money.

Also, the heat on the street meant that Cocaine became the smuggler's choice, as it was far less bulky, and far more profitable.

Then it was on to crack.

Ronald Friggin Reagan is almost solely responsible for the insane, unconscionable fact that the great majority of African American males have a relationship with prison.

Re: Ronald Reagan

Originally Posted by TomF

What of Reagan's contemporaries, in the NATO alliance or elsewhere? What of those who, even in America, jockeyed for power with Reagan? The consistent policy America took against the Soviet Union since 1945 hadn't really adapted much - Deterrence Theory and Mutual Assured Destruction were the stalwarts of every single American administration - and of every single Presidential Candidate from the 2 big parties who lost an American election in that period too. .

We are talking about two different things. The consistent policy of America in the post-war years until the early 70s was containment. Throughout the 70s, this was no longer seen as possible, and it went to détente and the hope of improving the worse of communism's horrors (with no real policy on the latter, but certainly words to the effect). It was not until Reagan and the Pope, that people started saying, wait a moment, half the world does not have to exist under the brutality of communism. Mankind can do better.

Certainly MAD was a consistent defense policy throughout all of this, but that is not my point.

What of Reagan's muse, the mighty Iron Lady? Hell, what of Gorbachev, who actually wanted to reduce nuclear arsenals far below Reagan's willingness, and whose authority was actually expressed when the Berlin Wall came down? He wanted to remain Communist, sure, but wanted even more to try and reduce the likelihood that the world would end up a cinder. I disagree with him profoundly, but recognize that I also owe him a debt

Perhaps Margaret Thatcher should have been on my list. Gorbachev, for all of his positive contributions, never intended for the soviet union to actually fail, or for communism itself to actually go away. He just was smart enough to know if it didn't reform it would die. He was not smart enough to know that his reforms would help lead to its death. While he certainly knew the repression had to end, he never seemed to grasp that the repression is what allowed it to exist.

Re: Ronald Reagan

Containment failed. In part it failed because communism arose for a variety of mixed reasons, in the same way frankly that present day Islamist Extremism is arising for a variety of mixed reasons. To be blunt, the models of capitalism existing then, and existing now, offered virtually no legitimate hope to people in the lands apt to turn communist (or Islamist extremist). The lived experience of people in those places was of being exploited, of structural economic issues which sure felt/still feel insurmountable - and which could be attributed to the attitudes, economic preferences, and lifestyles of rich Westerners. In many respects, the Libyan, Egyptian and Syrian leanings towards the Soviet Union mirror the leanings of groups within these areas to Islamism today. They're a protest against the West.

In that regard, we might do well to consider Islamism as an unlikely bastard stepchild of old-style Communism. Not that the ideologies themselves have anything in common, but they each define or defined their movements in reaction to a version of the Western model as a threat. The threat was defined differently, but not entirely so - and some aspects of the threat definition had kernels of truth mixed in with the vitriolic idiocy.

If I use the word "God," I sure don't mean an old man in the sky who just loves the occasional goat sacrifice. - Anne Lamott

Re: Ronald Reagan

Originally Posted by TomF

Containment failed. In part it failed because communism arose for a variety of mixed reasons, in the same way frankly that present day Islamist Extremism is arising for a variety of mixed reasons. To be blunt, the models of capitalism existing then, and existing now, offered virtually no legitimate hope to people in the lands apt to turn communist (or Islamist extremist). The lived experience of people in those places was of being exploited, of structural economic issues which sure felt/still feel insurmountable - and which could be attributed to the attitudes, economic preferences, and lifestyles of rich Westerners. In many respects, the Libyan, Egyptian and Syrian leanings towards the Soviet Union mirror the leanings of groups within these areas to Islamism today. They're a protest against the West.

In that regard, we might do well to consider Islamism as an unlikely bastard stepchild of old-style Communism. Not that the ideologies themselves have anything in common, but they each define or defined their movements in reaction to a version of the Western model as a threat. The threat was defined differently, but not entirely so - and some aspects of the threat definition had kernels of truth mixed in with the vitriolic idiocy.

Tom, I am not saying there is not some legitimacy in your thesis, but it certainly misrepresents the history of how communism came to power in almost every instance. Start with the Soviet Union, a relatively few communist intellectuals were able to take control of a failed state, and by sheer terror able to achieve a victory in a bloody civil war. Capitalism was not considered by anyone in the country. You simply had the whites who were reacting to events as best they could and the communists.
Then you have all of eastern Europe and North Korea. All became communist directly as a result of World War II, it had nothing to do with the people of those countries feeling exploited or of structural economic issues. In China, a small group of communists were able to maintain their rebellion prior to WWII mainly do to the ineptness of the nationalistic system and due to the vast size of the country (see The Long March). Able to recruit many more common people during the war simply because they were fighting the Japanese, and after the war, they had ample support from the Stalin to defeat a corrupt and failing regime. Vietnam: the French were on their way to complete victory until 1949 when China became communist and immediately started arming the communists across their shared border. Again, no real popular uprising of people wanting communism due to being exploited. Cuba? a very small group of intellectual revolutionaries were able to win mainly due to an extremely corrupt and inept government. Certainly the people of Cuba were not prosperous, but it was barely a third world nation, the GDP was the size of Italy and only a third of the population lived in poverty in 1950. The people did not rise up and choose communism because of capitalistic exploitation. Shall I go on... The point is, Communism was everywhere instituted by either an outside force (ie Moscow), or by a small group of revolutionaries who had little in common with the common person of that country and were aided by events in their favor. It never once cam power by any sort of popular movement.
It was always, even in the west, the lovely utopia of the intellectuals.

As to Islamic extremism today? Again, there is truth in your theory that Islamic extremists themselves feel threatened by the west. But they also want to conquer the west, they see it as a continuation of the great 1000 year war of proselytization begun at the time of Mohammed. Certainly poverty drives the young men choose this route at times. The biggest threat they see of Western society is moral corruption, not capitalistic exploitation.

Note: none of this is meant to defend any model of capitalism.

Containment failed because the communists were willing to fight hot localized wars, we were not. Containment failed because too many third world countries did not have well established functioning governments after colonization ended. Containment failed (in Eastern Europe) because the policy was not adopted in late 1944 (not that it should have been, but it just never was a policy for those countries).